The Dysfunctional Adventures of a Pre-Teen
Beatboy:
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on April 12, 2009, 09:22:12 PM
Perhaps the best method for schooling kids in this regard would combine all three: choose a game that brings the methods of GM decision-making to the surface to prevent arbitrary abuse, play the game with the children to give a good example of how you deal with the social aspects of creating together, and speak frankly about how GMs and players should deal with each other.
...and reinforce desired behavior.
Callan S.:
Quote
"GM decides - he is just presumed to do so according to certain criteria". It's not so much that anybody has agreed to a carte blanche of abuse
That they didn't follow certain criteria or that they didn't follow the spirit of the game. It can always be the other persons fault, like this. This can go on forever and it can always be the other guys fault. One never has to self correct or be in the wrong, because it can always be the other guys fault. What stops the 'spirit of the game' or 'certain conditions' from always meaning the other guy was at fault?
I don't think you can start heading toward decent games, where someone can always pull a 'not in the spirit of the game' as if someone else rather than themselves has to correct their behaviour/choices. Sirlin talks about something similar, where someone might call throws in streetfighter 'cheap' (almost the same as 'not in the spirit of the game'). Ie, they don't have to get better and find a way around throws, because the other person is in the wrong, at fault and 'cheap'.
FredGarber:
Some of the things that I'd ask your Son to consider about the Friend in the game group:
One of the 'features' of Bleach and especially Naruto is that there's a large amount of comedic damage and failure, even amongst the main characters. Maybe the friend isn't happy with the idea that his 'Super Dragon Attack" is often going to fail miserably. It may be that the GM and your Son are playing a more Sim based game, where Effectiveness is related more to GM whim and story pacing, than to the actual points and 'rules' on the sheet (a Gamist outlook)
Another feature is that Naruto sometimes and Bleach literally has a main hero character where the rules don't apply. Ichiko routinely does things that everyone else says are impossible, and Naruto has an advanced power (and a larger power source) as a low level character than everybody else. If the Friend wants to be that guy and isn't, there can be some major problems in the group.
More likely, Anime often has a main character and then several sidekicks of dubious power. If your son is in the role of "Harry Potter" character, the Friend may be unwilling to be the "Ron Weasely" (being the comic relief) or some other support role.
On the other hand, it may be exactly as the son describes, and the Friend is invested so deeply into the characer as an avatar of self that he can't separate things done to his character and things done to himself. Not only does he create the in-character relationships from out-of-play relationships, but he might be "Turtling" to avoid conflict, feeling that the GM's attacks against his character are attacks against him personally.
But I think that it generally sounds like the Friend wanted to be Captain Kirk, and ended up as Ensign Chekov.
-Fred
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hi there!
Quote
One possible solution might be to run a game for them with some heavily structured but light-weight rule system, to show them how playing with a system other than "GM decides what happens" can allow everyone around the table to have fun on the same terms.
I suggest that this will not work because it does not solve the problem, the problem being that not everybody agrees on what “fits” or “makes sense” in the game world.
I’m not a parent myself and have limited experience with 12-year-olds. That said, I think since the GM and your Son are wrongly assuming that the Friend “should known better” and therefore must not “take back” his stated actions, the best thing would be for them to realize their mistake. Whether it’s in your capacity to make them, I cannot say. Probably the best way is to show, not tell: If you GM for them, you will certainly get to the point where they misinterpret the situation, and then you can explain how they misinterpreted, and encourage them to restate their action. The point is transparency.
One line that has worked with grown-ups: “<Name of character> would not misjudge the situation that way, would he?”
- Frank
JoyWriter:
What should he have done? Clearly he should have rabidly attacked some guys he never met before because of a misunderstanding, leading to an action scene. (Judging by the genre at least) But because he had little confidence in the risks he tried to minimise them, or perhaps he just thought that inhumane/over-reacting. Either way he tried to follow the momentum of the GMs imagination, who was already imagining battle music!
It won't totally solve the problem of differing genre expectations but my first rule would be no stupidity unless specifically said. Characters should be given the benefit of the doubt when not specified, and any action that is potentially stupid should get flagged up. I must note also (genre again) he was flying on a dragon and flew up, if the GM has read "the colour of magic" and didn't think about it, he probably assumed that that is what happens when you fly up, and is an obvious thing to watch out for! In his world there were only two ways to fly up, with or without asphyxiation, and they could be distinguished because one was higher than the other. So woe betide anyone who flys up high! In contrast, some GM who played earlier editions of warhammer or pokemon might consider flying high to be equivalent to invincibility. Perhaps some mix of the two applied!
The really surreal bit is that he was already high up enough that elephants looked really small, he should by all rights have been able to fly back to where he was! Shifting perspective (the GM's view was on the mumaks), would the GM have said that the tiny spots could hit him? In these kinds of games reframing can be ridiculously effective! And when people start to see how powerful it is, they start to consider being more objective, in fact objectivity almost comes from trying to find frame independent descriptions.
But enough GM predicting what about the friend? He sounds like he is playing for the social part, like it's a means to an end, and is putting the same motivation onto other people. Perhaps he is literally playing as "GM's friend" and isn't first invested in the imaginary world, whereas the other two are quite capable of doing that. So with reduced interest and confidence in the SIS, he's getting clobbered by sim arguments. So how could you resolve this? Perhaps if the GM plays two characters with totally opposite opinions of his character? But that GM would probably have to be you! On the other hand, it could just be that he has been gaming his freedom and has had it reduced, accentuating the other problems, in that case it might be best if he played in some game that gave you benefits for loosing, something like Fate's "fate points", so he could get used to the idea, and warnings that he was taking risks (But hopefully he wouldn't mind any more). You'd really have to play to check.
My attitude when dealing with situations like this from afar has been to ask questions from a distance, taking a friendly but very different perspective, so that my brother, or in your case your son, can find routes to a solution that he had not considered, or hear arguments the other arguer could not articulate, generally one per conversation, with slight encouragement of their position. When you become a participant the situation changes dramatically, but seen as in this case you may have a perfect way in, depending on how the GM responds to someone else GMing, it might be quite a good option.
If you did play an rpg, it might be good to make it very different from their's, but still drawing on their interests. I suspect everyone should have times where they can be ridiculous, which is why a fate-type system might be perfect, as it could power their crazy powers, allowing them to get beaten, beaten, beaten, COME BACK WITH ULTIMATE POWER! Giving a safe and fairly non-lethal system, with the occasional power to disobey the rules thanks to fate points could be pretty nice, and give people an idea of value of slightly more explicit rules systems. Little things like max ranges and running speeds might solve a lot of hassle.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page